Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


I thought the 2016 Republican field was large. Now the 2020 Democrat field is up to 24 candidates, with probably more to enter later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries


Of the 24 currently in, 10 I never heard of till looking at the wikipedia page above. And I follow campaaign politics about as much as you could possibly follow it. Many of them (such as de Blasio) no doubt are not serious, and are just trying to increase their political visibility.

So far as I know, the 2016 Republican primary field was the most crowded ever, and this far exceeds that. And it ain't over yet...


The fact that Biden is leading the pack by a wide margin demonstrates that despite having 24 candidates, the selection is still pretty lousy.

I watched the Fox News 1-hour town hall meeting with Buttegeig on Sunday (May 19th).

And another on Special Report of Klobuchar.

It's telling of just how far off the deep end the Democrats are that every last one of them endorses:

* open borders,
* sanctuary cities,
* amnesty and/or citizenship for illegals,
* healthcare for illegals,
* federal reparations for blacks,
* the "green new deal",
* endorse post-birth infanticide (no restrictions on abortion),
* abolishing ICE,
* abolishing the electoral college (eliminating representation for smaller states),
* adding more justices beyond 9 to pack the Supreme Court with liberals,
* making Washington DC a state (washington D.C. was conceptualized specifically to not be a state),
* make Puerto Rico a state (only because it is a guaranteed Democrat electoral addition),
* to lower the legal voting age from 18 to 16,
* to let illegals vote (first voiced by failed GA governor candidate Stacey Abrams),
* and let incarcerated violent felons vote (first voiced by Bernie Sanders).

If any of the 24 maniacs running have not openly endorsed any of these points, they have at least quietly not condemned them for the craziness they are. Which means, though not campaigning on them, they would allow them if elected president.

We truly live in dangerous times.




Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29








Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 19,395
Likes: 7
brother from another mother
15000+ posts
Offline
brother from another mother
15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 19,395
Likes: 7
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy


It's telling of just how far off the deep end the Democrats are that every last one of them endorses:

* open borders,
* sanctuary cities,
* amnesty and/or citizenship for illegals,
* healthcare for illegals,
* federal reparations for blacks,
* the "green new deal",
* endorse post-birth infanticide (no restrictions on abortion),
* abolishing ICE,
* abolishing the electoral college (eliminating representation for smaller states),
* adding more justices beyond 9 to pack the Supreme Court with liberals,
* making Washington DC a state (washington D.C. was conceptualized specifically to not be a state),
* make Puerto Rico a state (only because it is a guaranteed Democrat electoral addition),
* to lower the legal voting age from 18 to 16,
* to let illegals vote (first voiced by failed GA governor candidate Stacey Abrams),
* and let incarcerated violent felons vote (first voiced by Bernie Sanders).

If any of the 24 maniacs running have not openly endorsed any of these points, they have at least quietly not condemned them for the craziness they are. Which means, though not campaigning on them, they would allow them if elected president.

We truly live in dangerous times.


God damn Democrats.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Damn we don't have a single reality tv show star that gushes about Putin. Better hope Putin helps your side again for another "electoral " victory. What is your side actually for these days anyways? Tax cuts and increased spending? And WB you would never apply the same standard for Republicans on what they support. I know many of the 2020 candidates have spoken about being against open borders for example. I'm not aware of any that actually support open borders. Do you understand what you even claim when you say they support open borders?

As for the topic in general, it is a whole bunch! Biden looks to be a solid front runner but I like quite a few of them. Amy Klobachar is an obvious favorite as well as the gay mayor with military experience.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Damn we don't have a single reality tv show star that gushes about Putin. Better hope Putin helps your side again for another "electoral " victory.


That is such a head-in-ass comment.
Even you don't believe that, M E M.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
What is your side actually for these days anyways? Tax cuts and increased spending?


Lower taxes to stimulate more private growth. Less government control = less waste, and less authoritarian abuse of power. Which is exactly what those I cited in my above post have been up to.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
And WB you would never apply the same standard for Republicans on what they support.


I've clearly and repeatedly said I advocate equal protection, and equal punishment, under the law. Whereas your side weaponizes the IRS, FBI and DOJ among other agencies against its political enemies. As I cited above. And for all of the Obama years on these boards.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
I know many of the 2020 candidates have spoken about being against open borders for example. I'm not aware of any that actually support open borders. Do you understand what you even claim when you say they support open borders?


Do you really believe that?

Of the 24 current Democrat candidates, I can't think of ONE who doesn't endorse admitting illegals and sanctuary cities.
And any attempt to slow down the flood of illegals coming in is portrayed by >>>ALL<<< the Democrats as white racism and hating brown people.
Republicans don't have a problem with over a million "brown people" a year entering our country through the proper legal channels (1.3 million last year, under "white racist supremacist" Trump, more annually than Obama).
We do have a HUGE problem with millions more unvetted illegals entering this country to commit crimes, carry infectious diseases, and sponge up healthcare and social benefits that should be going to American citizens and veterans.

Your party wants them here illegally so they can eventually vote and give your party a permanent (corrupt) majority. Stacey Abrams (the black race-obsessed demagogue and failed Georgia governor candidate) made clear she sees illegal immigrants as an untapped voter base.
And every Democrat candidate has similarly endorsed keeping these illegals here for that purpose, either stated or unstated, but keeping them here for that purpose nonetheless.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
As for the topic in general, it is a whole bunch! Biden looks to be a solid front runner but I like quite a few of them. Amy Klobachar is an obvious favorite as well as the gay mayor with military experience.


Buttegeig. He again endorses, as do Klobochar and Biden, sanctuary cities and giving illegals the right to stay here. Even among the Republicans, except for lip service, I don't see any Senators or House members, certainly not a majority, making a vigorous attempt to stop illegals, keep them out, or deport them, or advocate/support policy to do so.

Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard, while still advocating the same far-Left craziness, at least display some administrative and leadership ability.
Robert Gates, who served as secretary of defense in both the W.Bush and Obama administrations (2006-2011) and before that, CIA director, National Security Advisor, and Deputy CIA director, said of Biden: "He's been on the wrong side of nearly every foreign policy issue for decades."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-wrong-foreign-policy-decades-charles

It frankly terrifies me that any of the current Democrats could become president. Only because of Trump is there any attempt to stop the flood of illegals, to rebuild our economy and military, and protect us from the growing threat of the Chinese and Russians. If it were President Hillary, we would be seeing complete surrender in the current 8 year period. Exponentially increasing the damage after 8 crippling years of Obama.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


 Originally Posted By: Lothar of The Hill People
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy


It's telling of just how far off the deep end the Democrats are that every last one of them endorses:

* open borders,
* sanctuary cities,
* amnesty and/or citizenship for illegals,
* healthcare for illegals,
* federal reparations for blacks,
* the "green new deal",
* endorse post-birth infanticide (no restrictions on abortion),
* abolishing ICE,
* abolishing the electoral college (eliminating representation for smaller states),
* adding more justices beyond 9 to pack the Supreme Court with liberals,
* making Washington DC a state (washington D.C. was conceptualized specifically to not be a state),
* make Puerto Rico a state (only because it is a guaranteed Democrat electoral addition),
* to lower the legal voting age from 18 to 16,
* to let illegals vote (first voiced by failed GA governor candidate Stacey Abrams),
* and let incarcerated violent felons vote (first voiced by Bernie Sanders).

If any of the 24 maniacs running have not openly endorsed any of these points, they have at least quietly not condemned them for the craziness they are. Which means, though not campaigning on them, they would allow them if elected president.

We truly live in dangerous times.


God damn Democrats.




What Lothar said.

In all seriousness, I like a lot of Democrats as people and talk politics with many every day. But despite being nice people they have some dangerously suicidal ideas of how our country and the outside world works.

China is building a navy, island bases, and missile systems to be the dominant military power in the Pacific region, and within 20 years, the world. And aggressively moving in that direction.

As I detailed in another topic, they see the U.S. as their primary strategic enemy, and obstacle to their global domination. In a predatory way they are investing heavily in Africa and Latin America, that gives them the controlling share in those developing nations. Chinese colonization of those regions, by any other name.
Beyond trade deficits of $500 billion a year with the U.S., they also cyber-steal another $600 billion in technological and intellectual property.

Internally, China politically jails and kills tens of thousands of their own citizens in a Gulag system of concentration camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China#Falun_Gong
If they had military dominion over the U.S., would they treat us any better?

Russia, while we've let our nuclear arsenal age since the 1980's has modernized their nuclear arsenal, far from similarly downsizing their military in the Bush Sr, Clinton, and W. Bush years, slashed even deeper in the Obama years, as we did. They have also developed supersonic missile technology with new missiles that can travel so fast that there is no defense against them.

I seem to recall some warning in 2008 about Obama's plan to jeopardize U.S. military's technological superiority.
https://www.wnd.com/2008/05/65771/
That has now happened.

With Trump, there's a chance we can rebuild our military and economic strength. With the Dems in power, we're doomed.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



THE DEMOCRAT PARTY LEFT ME BEHIND - AND I'M NOT ALONE (Saritha Prabhu, The Tennessee Opinion columnist, reprinted in USA Today)


Although while much of the media is reflexively and rabidly anti-Republican/anti-Trump, I would dispute that any of the media, particularly Fox, is reflexively on the side of Trump. Fox News can only be portrayed as "leaning conservative" because of their relative right tilt (48% /52% balance of coverage) as compared to the far left tilt (70% to 90% pro-Democrat/anti-Trump coverage) of the mainstream liberal media.

https://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-foxn...journalism-2008

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron...ercent-negative

https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101

A consistent liberal bias for decades, and since the elections of Obama and Trump, an increasingly more shameless and unapologetic liberal bias.



Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
I watched Trump and Putin together and it was embarrassing to our country. Russia loved it. And Trump is a reality tv star. This is not a matter of belief but just the facts.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



OBAMA TO MEDVEDEV: "After my election I'll have more flexibility..."
MEDVEDEV (eagerly!): "I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]!"





Trump giving diplomatic flattering words to Putin while giving away nothing is nowhere near the treasonous low of Barack Obama, who clearly was deceiving the American people while secretly assuring his "flexibility" on U.S. missile defense, once he had successfully deceived his way into re-election. Add to that the Iran deal. And Egypt. and Libya. And Crimea and Ukraine.

Saul Alinsky tactics: Campaign as a moderate, and once achieving power, pursue a radical agenda.




Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Trump didn't just give flattering words to Putin. We discussed this already. It was so bad that Trump 24 hours later had to try to say he meant something else when he threw our intelligence under the bus. You gushed about his performance before that even. And yes Obama and any other President does have more flexibility off of election years. You knew he was doing his job because Putin hated him and actively helped Trump win in the next election.


Fair play!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
No, democrats don't want open borders

Good article and for those that actually care about border security instead of Trump's lies, exaggerations and game playing that have gotten us nowhere maybe something to think about.n


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I watched Trump and Putin together and it was embarrassing to our country. Russia loved it. And Trump is a reality tv star. This is not a matter of belief but just the facts.



Here is a "key moments" of that joint conference of Trump with Putin in Helsinki, as collected by The Guardian, a decidedly leftist and not exactly Trump-friendly source:

Key moments from the Trump-Putin press conference




I didn't see any Trump statements that were "embarassing for our country". The most cited moment is where Trump said Putin heatedly denied 2016 Russian interference in the U.S. election, and Trump said U.S. intelligence (Dan Coates) said they believe it was the Russians who hacked the DNC server, and Trump saying "I don't see any reason why it would be", and that he took Putin's word when he denies Russian involvement.
I still say Trump's comments were no different from the polite diplomacy of W.Bush ("I looked in his eyes...") or the Obama administration ("reset", and reaching out for friendlier relations, where Obama gave away defensive missile protection of Poland and Czech Republic without even telling them!) except in Trump's case his were just diplomatic words and gave away nothing, as oposed to Obama who gave away the store.

More media and DNC collaborative spin.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
No, democrats don't want open borders

Good article and for those that actually care about border security instead of Trump's lies, exaggerations and game playing that have gotten us nowhere maybe something to think about.n



Every last Democrat endorses sanctuary cities, and portrays attempts to stop the surge of illegal immigration as "racist".
You watch interviews on Fox News of ICE, Border Guard and Department of Homeland Security officials (of course! Because liberal media don't want them heard, and don't interview them!) and they all advocate the wall as the only way to truly contain and slow down illegals so they can be apprehended.

Democrats, for whatever posturing, always oppose the wall, the one legislative element that assures illegal immigration would truly be be stopped.


END OF DISCUSSION.
No matter what the spin of the New York Times. It is a lying Democrat narrative, that belies the actual facts.


Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
No, democrats don't want open borders

Good article and for those that actually care about border security instead of Trump's lies, exaggerations and game playing that have gotten us nowhere maybe something to think about.n



Every last Democrat endorses sanctuary cities, and portrays attempts to stop the surge of illegal immigration as "racist".
You watch interviews on Fox News (of course! Because liberal media don't want them heard, and don't interview them!) and they all advocate the wall as the only way to truly contain and slow down illegals so they can be apprehended.

Democrats, for whatever posturing, always oppose the wall, the one legislative element that assures illegal immigration would truly be be stopped.


END OF DISCUSSION.
No matter what the spin of the New York Times. It is a lying Democrat narrative, that belies the actual facts.



Sorry but you're just not being honest here. You have posted about Dems supporting and building barriers in the past. To say they always oppose the wall just is something we both know isn't true. They don't support Trump's wall because it's not effective having the one he says he wants that Mexico was going to pay for. Border security and immigration are important to everyone and the article I sourced cites the support for it by democrats.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

 Originally Posted By: WB
Every last Democrat endorses sanctuary cities, and portrays attempts to stop the surge of illegal immigration as "racist".
You watch interviews on Fox News of ICE, Border Guard, and Department of Homeland Security officials (of course! Because liberal media don't want them heard, and don't interview them!) and they all advocate the wall as the only way to truly contain and slow down illegals so they can be apprehended.

Democrats, for whatever posturing, always oppose the wall, the one legislative element that assures illegal immigration would truly be be stopped.

END OF DISCUSSION.
No matter what the spin of the New York Times. It is a lying Democrat narrative, that belies the actual facts.


Sorry but you're just not being honest here. You have posted about Dems supporting and building barriers in the past. To say they always oppose the wall just is something we both know isn't true. They don't support Trump's wall because it's not effective having the one he says he wants that Mexico was going to pay for. Border security and immigration are important to everyone and the article I sourced cites the support for it by democrats.



No.

To be more specific, I've cited Democrats giving lip service to securing the U.S. border, but never actually following through in 40 years and actually securing it. Even after Reagan's concession to secure the border by giving 1 million illegals amnesty in exchange for securing the border, Democrats took the amnesty and then undermined the part of the agreement for securing the border, so that we now have an estimated 28 million illegals.
And by the way, the 1 million estimated illegals to be given amnesty in the 1986 deal turned out to be 3 million who actually were given amnesty.

If Democrats now estimate (lowball) "12 to 20 million illegals", the true number is more likely 30 to 50 million. Another trojan horse Demss want Republicans to let in the gate.

AGAIN: Democrats advocate sanctuary cities and California is now a sanctuary state. They even release criminal illegals who should be handed over to ICE. Many of whom (in the last month!) have killed again once released.
Any governor, mayor, city council member, judge or police official who does this should be arrested and jailed for obstructing federal law.

See my post in the Soros Funded Caravans topic. The U.S. population is now 327 million. There are 760 million worldwide who would like to leave their countries and come to the United States. They are a danger to the very existence of our nation, if even another 5% of them were to swarm our borders.

And AGAIN: The United States generously admits about 1.1 million LEGAL green-card immigrants annually, more than almost all the other nations combined admit. Based on that generous level of immigration, we should not permit even one illegal immigrant. Let alone those who show contempt for our laws at every turn, and march into our country under foreign flags.



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



FIRST DEMOCRATIC DEBATE 2020 [Nicolle Wallace] 6/26/19



The first of 2 Democrat primary debates, 10 of the 25 Primary candidates. I think of it as "the children's table" debate.
With a second debate with "the adults table", the higher-polling candidates tonight.
Both in Miami.

The debate was a nationally televised foodfight, with repeated audio technical difficulties, where on one occasion they had to go to a commercial to resolve, and 5 ass-kissing lapdog liberal-progressive moderators who softballed their questions, asked no follow-up questions, and let the candidates get away with blatant misrepresentation of the facts with absolutely no challenge or pushback.

Textbook liberal Newspeak on full display.


Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man


Elizabeth Warren has endorsed the most radical immigration idea in the 2020 primary:
Warren is on board with a proposal, first floated by Julián Castro, to decriminalize crossing the border without papers.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


Exactly. There's no mistaking that Democrats are the party of lawlessness.


The second Democrat debate from last night, with 10 more of the 25 Democrat primary candidates, and the highest polling ones.

Democratic Presidential Debate - June 27 (Full) | NBC News (Actual debate starts 1 hour into the video.)




They all endorse :

1) de-criminalizing illegal immigration, which just guarantees illegal crossings would exponentially increase. At a point where we already had 140,000 illegals enter in one month in May 2019. Roughly equal to the population of my not-small city that took 120 years to reach that population. IN ONE MONTH.

and
2) providing healthcare to all illegals in the U.S.
Apparently they plan to tax the tens of millions of Americans who currently don't have health insurance to give superior coverage to illegals who shouldn't even be here.
I'm frankly surprised that Americans haven't stormed the Capitol at this point, dragged these Democrats out in the streets and hung them from the nearest tree.

As I cited in the Soros/Caravan topic, the total U.S. population now is about 330 million people. A poll I cited there shows another 750 million people would like to move to the United States if they could. More than twice the total U.S. population. Democrats press for the nation's destruction, and welcome the modern equivalent of the Vandals and Visigoths who destroyed the Roman Empire in 400 A.D.

It's insane.


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


Former press secretary Ari Fleischer just made a great point as a guest on Hannity:
If you're a Hollywood celebrity and you cheat to get your child into a college, that is a crime for which you are imprisoned.
If you illegally break into this country, you are not only not imprisoned for that crime, but get free college.

To my knowledge, not one of the Democrat primary candidates would do anything to stop illegal immigration. And quite the contrary, would de-criminalize crossing illegally, and kick the door open to encourage exponentially more illegal immigration.

See my post earlier to the Soros/illegal caravans topic. There are 327 million Americans right now. Gallup shows in a recent poll that another 750 million worldwide would like to immigrate, legally or illegally, to the United States, more than twice the current population. Democrats would do absolutely nothing to avert that catastrophe.

It's Rome, 400 A.D. all over again.





Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


Post election polls:


 Quote:
The CNN poll also has some red flags for Democrats. By a 57 percent to 37 percent margin, voters say a new health-care system shouldn’t completely replace private insurance. And among Democrats, only 31 percent think it is a good idea and 50 percent do not. On the broader question of whether the government should cover everyone even if it requires higher taxes, 56 percent (including 87 percent of Democrats) say yes, 40 percent say no.

Likewise, by a difference of 59 percent to 38 percent, Americans say they don’t want to give government health-care coverage to illegal immigrants. However, 66 percent of Democrats approve of the idea. That’s a quintessential issue on which a popular position in the primaries is a loser in the general election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...m=.31faace9ef82


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29




The latest 2 nights of Democratic primary debates. Probably the last time you'll see all 25 candidates still in the running. And still not one who cqn defeat Trump.

Democratic Presidential Debate - July 30, 2019 (Full) | Regressives vs. Libtards




As much as you can stomach.

I saw a report on OAN that only about 1 million Americans (less than 1%) tuned in to the last round of DNC debates and craziness). No one's watching, no one believes what they're saying, no one cares.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29

The second night of irrelevance:


Democratic Presidential Debate - July 31, 2019 (Full) | Cum-Ala Harris vs. Creepy Joe Biden II





It's clear who the media favors, in giving extrat time to the candidates they want to win. And how they softpedal on Bidan, because even though he can't win, he still polls the best against Trump. The questions are still softballs, the likes of which you'd never see asked of Republicans.

And Tulsi Gabbard is suing Google for $16 million, for suppressing information about her in online searches.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-for-50-million-alleging-censorship/


Mariannne Williamson as well has seen attempts to snuff out her candidacy by ultra-Left elements that control social media. Shades of Orwell's 1984.



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



On Laura Ingraham's program tonight, author Jeffrey Lord pointed out how the Democrats have gone from an attack narrative on Trump and Republicans of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA, and when that narrative collapsed have unashamedly pivoted to a narrative of RACISM RACISM RACISM. Which he points out is especially shameless and ironic, because the Democrat party historically and currently is built on 1) racism/slavery, 2) segregation and the KKK, and 3) identity politics.

The Democrat party is the home of racism.


Then there's the further examples he didn't bring up of Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA) and his blackface/KKK antics, and two levels of succession below him of racism/misogyny, that the Democrats no longer even call for removing from office.

Or gaff-prone creepy/groping Joseph Biden, who to name only two examples, said Barack Obama is a rare black guy whose "bright articulate and clean", and that you can't even go in a 7-11 unless you have an Indian accent.

But yeah, sure Dems, it's Republicans who are the "party of racism".

No, it's Democrats who are demonstably the party of racism and corruption. Further examples: Tracey Abrams, Andrew Gillum, Elijah Cummings, Charles Rangel, Hakeem Jeffries, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Alyssia Pressley, Ilhan Omar, los bros Joaquin and Julian Castro, Kamalah Harris, Bernie Sanders, and pretty much all the 2020 Democrat candidates.
Without rhetoric of identity politics and splintering the nation along race and class lines, uneccessarily and on contrived slander, there would be nothing for the Democrat party to rally on. They have no ideas.



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



Obama's glowing endorsement of Obama:

New York Times: OBAMA REPORTEDLY TOLD BIDEN: "YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS, JOE. YOU REALLY DON'T..."

 Quote:



Former President Barack Obama reportedly told his former Vice President Joe Biden that he didn't "have to" run for president in 2020.
“You don’t have to do this, Joe, you really don’t,” Obama told Biden earlier this year, according to The New York Times.

Their report goes on to say that Obama quietly tried to convince his vice president to sit out of the 2016 presidential race, arguing that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a better chance to build upon his eight years as president. He was also worried about Biden's state of mind following the death of his son, Beau.

In response to Obama telling him he didn't have to run, Biden, who believes he would've beaten President Trump in 2016, said that he wouldn't be able to live with himself if he didn't take this opportunity the second time around.
Since then though, Obama has quietly chided Biden, saying that his advisers and inner circle are "too old and out of touch with the current political climate," The Times' report added.

Obama met with two of Biden's advisers in March and told them regardless of the outcome of the election, the most important thing was that Biden doesn't “embarrass himself” or “damage his legacy."



Shades of Bill Clinton, for Obama it's all about him and "his legacy".

Regardless, Obama makes clear that he thinks Biden not only can't win, but that he'll humiliate both himself and Obama. And damage Obama's precious legacy.




Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


Jill Biden: Your Candidate Might Be Better Than Joe, But Look At Who's Going To Win

 Quote:
Thursday at a New Hampshire campaign event broadcast on MSNBC, Jill Biden, the wife of former Vice President Joe Biden, urged Democratic primary voters to think first about electability and vote for her husband.

"So yes, you know, your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election, and maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, 'OK, I personally like so-and-so better,' but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump," she said.


Yeah, I know my husband is a third-rate candidate who keeps saying dumb stuff, but he's the one with the best chance of beating Trump, so even if you hate him, you have to vote for him. No, really!


Man, you just can't make this stuff up.
Republicans don't even have to respond, what could be better than Jill Biden going on national television to say her husband isn't the best candidate?
But that out of desperation in a barren field of 25 insane Democrats, DNC voters should choose her not-so-great husband.

The Republican ads just write themselves...

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



Biden Forcefully Grabs Girl Asking Question, says "Don't play games with me", and multiple other gaffes this week

 Quote:

As his gaffe parade continues, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden added insult to injury Thursday by angrily grabbing an Iowa college student by the arm and snapping at her because he didn’t like her questioning him about his stance on gender identity.

Many are now asking, "Is he fit to be president?"

The student – a field staffer for the Christian ministry, Turning Point USA – asked the former vice president about his take on genders … with the LGBT community contending there are dozens upon dozens.

"How many genders are there?" she asked, according to TheBlaze.

Biden responded by asking, “Pardon me?” -- and when the student repeated her question, Biden gave a vague answer.

“There are at least three,” the 76-year-old Democrat insisted, only to have the student come back by pressing, “What are they?”


KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF

Not liking where the questions were leading, the ex-VP shot a stern warning at the student.

“Don’t play games with me, kid!” Biden barked before reaching out and grabbing the student’s arm and reminding her, “By the way, the first to come out for marriage was me," – most likely referring to his support for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Turning Point Founder and Executive Director Charlie Kirk posted a video of the incident on social media.
Watch former Vice President Biden forcefully grab one of our young field staffers at yesterday’s Iowa State Fair after she asked him how many genders there are,” Kirk tweeted Friday.

“Biden has taken a lot of heat this election cycle over accusations of him inappropriately touching women in the past,” TheBlaze’s Breck Dumas recounted. “While most of the recent allegations have been characterized as unwelcome signs of affection, Biden's physical contact with Katie did not appear to be friendly in nature.”


THE GAFFE MACHINE...

As if former President Barack Obama’s old running mate didn’t have enough to worry about while campaigning for the 2020 election, his gaffes kept on coming last week, as well.

“Biden has been criticized for multiple incidents of inappropriately touching girls and women and has had multiple verbal stumbles on the campaign trail,’” the New York Post reported.

And the gaffes weren’t spread out over months, but over a 24-hour period.

“On Thursday, the 76-year-old Biden made three high-profile gaffes on the campaign trail that quickly renewed all of the old doubts about his candidacy,” Breitbart News reported.

The politician began his day confusing everyone around him at the Iowa State Fair – and also himself, apparently – as he tried to take a stab at Trump.

“Everybody knows who Donald Trump is – even his supporters know who he is,” Biden contended near the end of his stump speech, according to Breitbart News. “We got to let him know who we are – we choose unity over division, we choose science over fiction, we choose truth over facts.”

Breitbart’s Haris Alic pointed out says "many of those watching were left confused as to what Biden meant.

“The comment was likely the result of Biden flubbing an applause line he frequently uses to end campaign appearances: ‘we have to choose hope over fear, unity over division and, maybe most importantly, truth over lies,’” says Alic.

“Later in the evening, while addressing a town hall in Des Moines, Iowa – organized by the Asian and Latino Coalition – Biden confused the name of recently ousted British Prime Minister Theresa May, with the late Margaret Thatcher – who left office in 1990,” Alic noted.

Then Biden misquoted the president in an attempt to condemn him.

“Words that stunned the nation, and I would argue – I know – shocked the world … International leaders spoke about it,” Biden charged while falsely accusing Trump of lauding the neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the altercation at Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 as “very fine people” – a claim that has been debunked by two-year-old transcripts published by Politico.

Biden continued: “You had people like Margaret Thatch… excuse me,” he said while realizing his blunder “You had people like the former chairman and the leader of the party in Germany. You had Angela Merkel stand up and say how terrible it was. International leaders looked at us like, ‘what in God’s name is happening to the United States of America?’”

Biden’s next gaffe drew little media attention.

“We should challenge these students, we should challenge students in these schools to have advanced placement programs in these schools,” the Democratic leader said while talking about how he would reform the education system in the U.S. “We have this notion that somehow if you’re poor you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

Breitbart's Alic says Biden's attempt to clarify that statement couldn't repair the damage.

“Biden quickly tried to clarify, adding ‘wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids’ as an addendum to his last sentence, but despite efforts by the candidate and his team to walk back the racially insensitive remarks, the damage was done,” Alic recalled. “Even before the gaffes were fully understood, several prominent individuals on the left began questioning not only Biden’s capabilities as a candidate, but also his competence to be commander-in-chief.”

After this salvo of gaffes, accoding to Alic, serious concern was raised about whether Biden is actually mentally capable of leading the nation.

“One of the most vocal was Adam Jentleson – a one-time deputy chief of staff to former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada),” Alic noted. “Shortly after the gaffes went viral on Thursday, Jentleson took to social media and called on Biden’s team to prove their candidate was up to the task of running for president.”

Jentleson implied that Biden’s mental and physical state might disqualify him from running for president.

“Biden and his team owe it to voters to [let] him run a real, rigorous public campaign schedule – like everyone else,” Jentleson tweeted Friday. “If he can hack it, great. If not, better to know sooner rather than later. Keeping him under wraps except for big events while trying to skate by is just sketchy.”

The Intercept Bureau Chief Ryan Grim charged Biden’s team with possibly promoting an illegitimate candidate to represent the Democratic Party as its presidential nominee.

“Senior Biden advisers – if they’re trying to smuggle in a candidate who isn’t fully with it – are truly playing with fire,” Grim tweeted Friday. “That’s a sociopathic – and ultimately unsustainable – strategy if that’s what’s happening.”

Jentleson and Grim aren’t the only ones worried about Biden’s perceived inability to lead a nation, as numerous similar concerns have been aired both privately and anonymously ever since Biden announced his candidacy for a 2020 White House run.

One Democrat serving in the U.S. Senate voiced his own misgivings about Biden’s bid to occupy the Oval Office after seeing him get jostled around by competitors in his first presidential primary debate.

“I was worried after the first debate he might have lost a step,” the senator told The Hill earlier this month.


ONE MORE GAFFE FOR THE ROAD...

Biden hit the campaign trail again Saturday and insisted that he was vice president during the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 on February 14, 2018 – when Trump had already been in the White House with Vice President Mike Pence at his side for over a year.

Biden is now drawing even more mockery from his political opponents after he insisted he visited with kids whohe never met or consoled during last year’s tragedy – when he was no longer VP.

“The 76-year-old Biden, who left the vice presidency in 2017, was talking about gun violence with reporters in Iowa when he said that ‘those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president’ after the shooting that left 14 students and three educators dead,” Fox News announced.



It makes you nervous of what could have happened if he'd ever become president during Obama's 8 years... WOO !

Seriously, who has confidence in this guy. And meanwhile Trump had the best performance numbers across the board of any president in over 50 years.




Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



Last night was the Iowa Caucus. When I looked last night about 2 AM they were still not counted yet, and there was some kind of glitch with the caucus counting system.
Without having any count, Amy Klobachar gave a victory speech of sorts without any visible basis for declaring it. Not to be upstaged, a few minutes later Bernie Sanders gave a similar speech, and a few minutes after Joe Biden (who is believed to have finished 5th in the caucus) also gave a victory speech.

Now I look this morning, and it's total meltdown chaos in the Democrat voting system. Reporters are waiting outside, but the election staff, with the lights still on but no one in the office, have apparently moved the vote counting (vote rigging?) to an undisclosed offsite location. So much for the ballot chain of custody... and that should play real well with the Bernie Sanders voters if Sanders again mysteriously loses after leading in the Iowa polls.

It's a madhouse. AAAAAAAA MAAAAAAAAAD HOOOOOOOOOOOOUSE!




Iowa caucus vote totals delayed amid 'inconsistencies'; campaigns lash out at 'crazy' state party

 Quote:
The Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) still has not reported official vote totals in the critical Iowa caucuses as of early Tuesday morning, in a largely unexplained and unprecedented delay that has raised questions about the legitimacy of the contest -- and Democratic campaign officials are livid, Fox News has learned.

The Trump campaign, meanwhile, openly suggested that the delay meant that the caucuses were being "rigged," and that the embarrassing night proved that the Democratic Party can't be trusted to run Americans' health care and implement sweeping new government programs. Even if a winner were ultimately announced, the chaos and confusion has seemingly erased any hope for the major momentum boost that would normally result.

"We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results," the IDP said in a statement at 11:30 p.m. ET. "In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report. This is simply a reporting issue. The app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results."

Fox News is told that during an initial conference call with the campaigns, an IDP representative said the party would be "getting photos of the paper results sent over," but didn't answer any questions and then hung up on all the campaigns, even as frustrated staffers pushed for answers. A campaign staffer told Fox News the IDP's brief call was "crazy."

Another campaign official told Fox News, “Yes, they did hang up.”

During a second, equally contentious conference call early Tuesday morning, the IDP reportedly informed campaigns they could expect results sometime later on Tuesday, but gave no information about how the results would be verified or when precisely they would be published. (The 2016 Iowa caucus tallies were provided on the same day of voting, with more than 90 percent of precincts reporting by 11:00 p.m. ET that year.)

Speaking on a brief call with reporters at approximately 1:10 a.m. ET on Tuesday that lasted a little over a minute, the IDP said the system to validate electoral results was taking longer than expected, but that there had been no hack or intrusion. The IDP did not specify a precise time for results to post on Tuesday.

Former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign wrote to the IDP late Tuesday, complaining about the "considerable flaws" in the caucus reporting process. Biden, who arrived in New Hampshire early Tuesday, appeared to be dramatically underperforming at several precincts in Iowa throughout the night.


"The app that was intended to relay Caucus results to the Party failed; the Party’s back-up telephonic reporting system likewise has failed," the campaign wrote in a letter. "Now, we understand that Caucus Chairs are attempting to — and, in many cases, failing to — report results telephonically to the Party. These acute failures are occurring statewide. We appreciate that you plan to brief the campaigns momentarily on these issues, and we plan to participate. However, we believe that the campaigns deserve full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing, and an opportunity to respond, before any official results are released."

Screenshots posted to social media seemingly showed crash screens from the caucus app that indicated poor programming.

About an hour earlier, IDP spokesperson Mandy McClure said in a statement, "The integrity of the results is paramount. We have experienced a delay in the results due to quality checks and the fact that the IDP is reporting out three data sets for the first time. What we know right now is that around 25% of precincts have reported, and early data indicates turnout is on pace for 2016."

However, the turnout in the 2016 Democratic caucuses in Iowa was only 171,109. That was far below the nearly 240,000 that took part in the 2008 Democratic caucuses, when then-Sen. Barack Obama won the contest -- indicating that Democrats' high hopes for enthusiasm have not panned out.


With every passing minute that there is a delay, we worry that the process will lose credibility," a top Elizabeth Warren aide told CNN.

Former 2020 presidential contender Julian Castro tweeted: "This is a total mess. I respect the people of Iowa, they’ve been great—but it’s become very clear that our democracy has been misserved by a broken system."



BUTTEGEIG DECLARES VICTORY --WITHOUT VOTES

The void of information allowed campaigns to spin the results in their favor. Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg even said he was "victorious" early Tuesday and that Iowa had "shocked the nation," claiming the campaign's internal numbers showed he had pulled ahead.

"77 percent of our precinct captains have reported results from their caucuses," a Buttigieg aide told Fox News, noting that previous projections "had the race at a virtual tie on state delegate equivalents, but from the 77 percent of reported precincts, we’re performing 8 points better than our projections."


The aide added: "We believe we’re on our way to winning the SDE [State Delegate Equivalent] count. In the 1,301 precincts our precinct captains have reported, Pete reached viability in 1,064 (83%). For additional context, turnout returned to historical norms and we expect participation rates to wind up near 2016 levels. We found that our support in rural parts of the state was ~5% better than we expected (coming in at 28% so far.)"

Former presidiential candidate Marianne Williamson remarked incredulously from the sidelines, "Did Pete Buttigieg just claim victory in Iowa when the results haven’t been announced yet?"


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders went rogue, and released internal data that his campaign said represented vote totals 40 percent of precincts. The figures, which indicated Sanders was winning with a narrow lead over Buttigieg, were also unverified.

In a surreal moment shortly before Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar took the stage at her Iowa headquarters to thank her supporters -- even as no voting results were available -- a precinct chief was being interviewed on CNN while he was on hold for more than an hour with the IDP to report results.

The IDP then hung up on the precinct chief live on-air after he was too slow to respond once they took him off hold.


At least four precincts had to resolve ties in their vote results by flipping a coin during the evening, Fox News has learned.

Speaking at 11:30 p.m. ET, Biden said he felt good about the caucus, then remarked, "So it's on to New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and well beyond. We're in this for the long haul."

"I want to thank the Iowans that are here," Biden said. "Well, the Democratic Party is working to get this result to get it straight. And I want to make sure they're very careful in their deliberations. ... We're gonna walk out of here with our share of delegates. We don't know exactly what it is yet, but we feel good about where we are."

Taking the microphone ten minutes later, Sanders said that when the results were in, he had a "good feeling we're going to be doing very very well here in Iowa."

Nearing midnight local time, the bar at Sanders headquarters was packed, and the crowd had not thinned at all.



Klobuchar's team, for their part, sounded its own note of optimism.

"Big night in Iowa," Klobuchar campaign chairman Justin Buoen wrote on Twitter. "With the numbers we’ve seen internally and publicly, we’re running even or ahead of Vice President Biden. Wheels up to New Hampshire!”



TRUMP TEAM MOCKS 'RIGGED' VOTE

Before voting began, the IDP had announced that for the first time ever, it would report three sets of results at the end of the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses: a tally of caucus-goers’ initial candidate preference; vote totals from the “final alignment” after supporters of lower-ranking candidates were able to make a second choice, and the total number of State Delegate Equivalents each candidate receives. There was no guarantee that all three will show the same winner.

By the end of the night, it became clear that there was no guarantee there would be any winner at all.


JOHN KERRY OVERHEARD SAYING SANDERS WIN WOULD 'TAKE DOWN' THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY



In social media posts, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had boasted that it had been "preparing" for the Iowa process "for three years" to make the primary process "the most transparent" ever.

As the situation broke down minute by minute, the Trump campaign mocked the delay on Twitter, even as it celebrated the huge crowds at GOP caucuses in the state that showed up to vote for the president.



"QUALITY CONTROL = RIGGED ?" ASKS TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER BRAD PARSCALE.

“Democrats are stewing in a caucus mess of their own creation with the sloppiest train wreck in history," Parscale said in a statement just after midnight. "It would be natural for people to doubt the fairness of the process. And these are the people who want to run our entire health care system?"

Parscale added: "Tonight President Trump posted a record performance in the well-run GOP Iowa caucuses with record turnout for an incumbent.”

For his part, with just hours to go until his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Trump tweeted only, "Big WIN for us in Iowa tonight. Thank you!"

"If the Democrats can’t run a #caucus that they had four years to prepare for, how the hell can anyone think they could actually run the country?" Donald Trump, Jr., tweeted.



SANDERS SUPPORTERS STORM OUT.

The drama began unfolding late Monday, as the night wound on without any official vote figures released. In one precinct, Sanders reportedly won by 20 points, but received only one delegate -- along with four other candidates.

Sanders supporters called the situation a "joke" and stormed out, according to The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein.

Each candidate has to meet a threshold of 15 percent to be considered viable in each precinct. That means the number of people backing a candidate has to be at least 15 percent of the total number of people in the room at the local caucus.

For example, if there are 100 people in the room and 14 are backing a particular candidate, that candidate is not considered viable. If a candidate is determined to be not viable, that contender’s supporters would be given the opportunity to support another candidate in the next round.

An adviser to Biden told Fox News he was watching the caucus coverage with his family in Des Moines, and that the entry polls they’ve seen lined up with what the campaign was expecting -- although it wasn't clear what polls the adviser was referring to.

"Joe's had Iowa to himself," Donald Trump, Jr., told Bloomberg News Monday night, alluding to Biden's ability to campaign in the state while Warren and Klobuchar stayed in Washington, D.C. for Senate impeachment proceedings. "If he doesn't win big tonight, I think that's very indicative of his campaign."



In an unexpected move, almost all of the caucus-goers for the nonviable candidates at the Drake University precinct in Des Moines teamed up for Cory Booker, who has already dropped out of the presidential race. The caucus-goers told Fox News tactic was designed to keep delegates always from the viable candidates.

There were 402 caucus-goers after the first alignment, and three reached viability: Warren with 120, Buttigieg with 101, and Sanders with 100. The nonviable were Andrew Yang with 33, Biden with 17, Klobuchar with 24, and Tom Steyer with 1.

The precinct leaders for the nonviable candidates told Fox News the strategy was purely decided among the caucus-goers at the Drake University precinct and did not represent a statewide strategy dictated by the campaigns.




More at the link. Total chaos.

The best part was how the Trump campaign chimed in saying These guys can't even run a state caaucus, how can they be trusted to run a country?

Comedy gold. The punchlines write themselves!




Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



On top of that, a few days ago Bloomberg who didn't qualify for the debates, but he made a huge donation to the DNC, and all of a sudden he's on the stage with the frontrunners!
And people like Cory Booker and other minority candidates who couldn't qualify and were given no flexibility to be on stage in past debates, are raising hell against their own party for being bought off by Bloomberg, who for the right amount they could make an exception.
Complaints of elitism, and of possible racism, from the excluded candidates.

And again the race-obsessed Democrats bemoaning the exclusion of any candidates of color, and backhaandedly their hatred of whites, who they view with contempt as the remaining candidates. Once again the Democrats show their true face. And it's one that screams for the marginalization of white America. It won't be long till they express the same hatred for white Demcorat voters that they already do for white Democrat candidates, and needless to say their long expressed hatred for white Republicans, particularly those in MAGA hats. Way to go, Dems! Way to further alienate another huge swath of your voter-base.

They just can't help themselves.

It's going to be another November like 1972 or 1984. Such fun to stand in the sidelines and watch the Democrats destroy themselves, and ravenously eat their own.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Yup, caucuses are messy. I wouldn’t crow to much though as your party made it simple for republican voters by not letting other republicans run against Trump. Like trials without witnesses I suppose you get quicker results leaving your party a choice of just Trump.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Yup, caucuses are messy. I wouldn’t crow to much though as your party made it simple for republican voters by not letting other republicans run against Trump. Like trials without witnesses I suppose you get quicker results leaving your party a choice of just Trump.


Some more messy than others. This is reminiscent of the collossal failure of the Obamacare website launch in 2013.

And also reminiscent of the DNC (revealed in their own internal e-mails) rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders in 2016. Where Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz was exposed and forced to resign as DNC chair.
And then her replacement, DNC new chair Donna Brazile, was revealed to be just as involved in badmouthing and plotting against Bernie Sanders.

And that's on top of Brazile rigging CNN debates, feeding Hillary Clinton the questions in advance of the debates. TWO separate televised CNN debates.


There were two other Republicans running. They both each got about 1% of the Iowa vote.


What I enjoy most is that Democrats have been launching this kind of backstabbing viciousness on Republican candidates since 2004. But increasingly, they just can't resist unleashing the same vicious rat-fuck tactics on their own. It's a pleasure to watch them viciously claw on each other, the ones who most deserve the clawing.

Meanwhile, Trump is busy fulfilling all his campaign promises, creating record growth, record low unemployment, rebuilding our military, re-negotiating trade deals that will further increase domestic growth and jobs, and securing our southern border.

As an alternative to Trump, Democrats only offer the chaos they displayed last night.


Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Yup, caucuses are messy. I wouldn’t crow to much though as your party made it simple for republican voters by not letting other republicans run against Trump.


Both Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh ran against Trump in the Iowa caucus.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Results are still coming in but mayor Pete looks to have done very well! Klobuchar did okay but she really worked for it. Biden didn’t do as well as I thought he would. Bernie and Warren both right up there.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29


Over 24 hours after the Iowa Caucus, and the Democrats still haven't counted all the votes.


With 62% counted at this time, the results are:

Buttigeig........26.9%
Sanders..........25.1%
Warren...........18.3%
Biden............15.6%
Klobuchar........12.6%

And at the children's table:

Yang...............1%
Bloomberg......<1%
Steyer............<1%
Gabbard..........<1%


Subject to change, not fully counted, but that's the best the Dems have to offer so far.

Most incredible for me is Biden had the field to himself in Iowa for the last 2 weeks, with all major competitors (Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar) required to be Washington DC for the Senate impeachment trial. And even with that advantage, this is the best Biden could do!

Also interesting that the billionaires (Steyer and Bloomberg), for all their expensive advertising, are both circling the drain at less than 1%.

I'm just so incensed at this entire 2020 Democrat field at this point, that I could never vote for any of them.

They side against
* our police,
* against our military,
* against border patrol and securing our borders.
* Every 2020 candidate onstage raised their hand for de-criminalizing illegal immigrants,
* all support giving illegals taxpayer-funded health insurance (something many U.S. taxpayers don't have, but they want the uninsured to insure illegals!),
* all want to wreck our fossil-feul energy sector (right when Trump has made us economically independent and unreliant on the Middle East/OPEC for the first time in 70 years, and therefore able to leave behind wars in the Middle East.)
* And Every Democrat on stage is down for nationalized/socialized healthcare that will wreck our private healthcare system that 180 million Americans are happy with.

Score another win for the Bolshevik party. With a platform that no one wants to vote for except the hardest left wing of the Democrat party. Driving away the Democrat middle class. The Reagan Democrats are now once again Trump Democrats.
Thanks Dems!

On a personal level I actually like a few of the Democrat candidates.

Delaney who dropped out this week is a sane pragmatic voice (like James Webb in 2016) who could get no traction in this party.
Tim Ryan at least gave lip service to moderate positions.
Andrew Yang I think is an intelligent guy with some good ideas (unfortunately intertwined with some crazy left ideas).
Amy Klobuchar, has a track record of accomplishments, but again endorses the crazy-left agenda.
Tulsi Gabbard I respect as someone who has served in our military, and again thinks outside the box, at least on foreign policy, and is therefore attacked by her fellow establishment Democrats, most noteworthy by Hillary Rodent Clinton. But again: open borders, amnesty, healthcare for illegals, the whole crazy nine yards.

Politically, every one of these candidates have demonstrated themselves to be one with the maniacs who would destroy the country: Open borders, amnesty for illegals, FREE HEALTH CARE for illegals, reversing the securing of our border, sanctuary cities, de-funding our military, capitulating to China, eliminating ICE, wrecking our energy industry, further wrecking healthcare, on and on.

If Trump were only a president on a par with G.H.W. Bush, W. Bush the younger, or candidates like McCain or Romney, he would still be the only palatable choice relative to the maniacs the Boshevik party is offering us.
But how much more preferable is Trump who is quantifiably the most accomplished president in at least 50 years in categories across the board?



Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29



VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE, interviewed after the Address about Pelosi's action:

"I wasn't sure if she was ripping up the speech, or ripping up the Constitution."



Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Errrr not sure what trump’s mini me trying to please his master has to do with this actual topic? I was surprised at Biden’s poor showing too. Than again he looks so old and his gaffes probably stick more. I like him and he’s probably got more chances but Trump probably got himself impeached trying to get rid of the wrong rival.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Errrr not sure what trump’s mini me trying to please his master has to do with this actual topic? I was surprised at Biden’s poor showing too. Than again he looks so old and his gaffes probably stick more. I like him and he’s probably got more chances but Trump probably got himself impeached trying to get rid of the wrong rival.



I've never heard Mike Pence called that. Pence is a pretty big guy to be dismissed as a mini-me. And Pence is one of the most sincere men in politics.

You should watch Tucker Carlson when he replays at midnight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5MRL4xECck
A story about 15 minutes in talks about Buttigeig's campaign's connection to the company that provided the app that has been maalfunctioning.
Followed by a former CIA special ops guy talks about how based on his experience that DNC's botched count in the Iowa Caucus was not a mistake, but with the knowledge that Sanders would be the big winner, the errors were deliberate, a way to discredit a Sanders victory in Iowa.

My instinct watching the Iowa ballot count over the last 48 hours is that it was a mixture of technological error and DNC rigging of the vote. This just confirms it.

And gee, I'm so shocked, after the slanders unleashed on Trump in the 2016 election, after the Roy Moore Senate election in Alamama and the slime poured on him. After the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation and the orhcestrated slime dumped on him. After the Wikileaks e-mails in 2016 that exposed how the DNC conspired against Sanders to give the nomination to Hillary. Where Debbie Wasserman-Bitch-Cunt-Schultz was forced to resign, and then immediately hired to lead the Hillary Clkinton cmpaign.
Gosh, I'm just so shocked the Democrats might rig the Iowa Caucus!

Gee, what are the odds?

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Actually it wasn’t meant to be a size related comparison but I saw mini me as a failed copy of the evil villain in Austin Powers. That’s Pence. And your quote about Pence worrying that Pelosi was ripping the constitution shows his insincerity. He’s willing to say something untrue and it’s okay because it’s about a democrat. You can heap all the phony partisan praise on that garbage but he’s still gonna stink.


Fair play!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,791
Likes: 40
As for the actual topic what can I say, very happy to see mayor Pete do so well! I don’t think he could win but than again I’ve always been wrong on guessing who could actually win all the way back to Bill Clinton.

And I see even FOX is reporting that conservative trolls jammed the lines on caucus night adding to the problems they were already having. I’m glad they kept a paper trail and are not trying to rush out results and possibly duplicate what happened to Santorum back when Romney was incorrectly called the winner and it wasn’t corrected until much later.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
OP Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,940
Likes: 29
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Actually it wasn’t meant to be a size related comparison but I saw mini me as a failed copy of the evil villain in Austin Powers. That’s Pence. And your quote about Pence worrying that Pelosi was ripping the constitution shows his insincerity. He’s willing to say something untrue and it’s okay because it’s about a democrat. You can heap all the phony partisan praise on that garbage but he’s still gonna stink.



Insults... unsupported by facts.

Pence is by all appearances a very devout conservative Christian. He's not the most exciting guy, but he definitely seems very sincere in his faith and desire to do good in the world. The liberal media made fun of him a year or so ago because he said he loves his wife and won't spend time alone with other women to endanger that marriage! Wow, what a terrible guy.

For the Democrat/Left, conservative or sincere devout Christian = bad.

But criminal illegal immigrants, open borders, abortion on demand, forcing Christians to act against their faith to fund abortion or other fforced participation in gay culture, weakening our national defense to a level that endangers our soldiers, millions of new illegal immigrants annually, ALL = good.

Don't misunderstand me, gays, or whoever, have a right to their lifestyle. But they don't have a right to force their lifestyle choices on those who don't share their beliefs. To destroy conservative communities by forcing them to participate in failed liberal policy.
Like forcing taxpayers who want our borders secured to pay for illegals immigrants' housing and healthcare, thus encouraging more off them that were unwanted int he first place. Or forcing a Christian baker or photographer to cater a gay wedding. Or forcing residents in California or New York to pay the cost and live among homeless people who are pooping and urinating in the streets, and burglarizing homes and cars of the residents forced to live among them. To put conservative citizens at risk of diseases from hepatitis to bubonic plague, diseases not seen in close to a century in the U.S., if ever. Cultural decline all rising from insane liberal policy.

A free society is where Christians have a right to their lifestyle choices and traditions that work, and gays and other liberals have a right to their social experiments that ddon't work. But from Obama forward, Christians and conservatives are demonized and forced to participate in things they don't agree with, and don't like the consequences of.
Even in beautiful Boca Raton, "Section 8" housing subsidizes absolute scum and drug addicts in really nice neighborhoods. The poor, illegal immigrants, juvenile delinquents, a few years aago a drug dealer who was selling out of my building. I know because one afternoon I just parked my car and two police officers asked me about him. In a very nice residential community, I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Things we pay good money to live in a nice community to not be exposed to.
I was talking to a client a few months ago who lives in an intercoastal neighborhood with multimillion-dollar homes, she was really pissed that there are homes right across the street from her with government subsidized rehab halfway houses, and on weeknights she is often awakened at 11 or midnight by residents of an adjacent halfway house rehab residents, drug addicts coming outside to talk loudly and smoke cigarrettes at all hours.
I've had several in my condo development who were a problem before they moved out or were evicted. In 2015, I drove home from my girlfriends, and there was an army of cops with police dogs going house to house looking for an known drug trafficker/murderer, with several police helicopters with searchlights roaring overhead. It was about 11 PM, and I was not allowed in, and had to go to a bar/restaurant for about 2 hours, until they finally let me come home my second time at the gate. I've never seen anything like that.

If liberals want these things, let them live among it. But don't force conservatives to give up our way of life, and conform to a drug-addicted, secularist, homeless-filth-laden, utopia your policies create. That create decadent parasites and treat drug addicts and illegals and homeless scum better than honest citizens. Even liberals are leaving places like California and New York, and spreading their poisonous liberal ideology to places like Nevada, Colorado, Texas and Florida. South Florida has become a hub of expensive government subsidized drug rehab centers. And it is turning this place to a left-wing socialist hellhole of bad policy.
Leaving work or the day in a very nice area, several times a week I find I.V needles in the parking lot near my car. Twice in the last 3 years police have found an overdosed addict dead in their car. This is in Boca Raton, one of the richest cities in America!

So... screw your opinion of Mike Pence. If there were 160 million Mike Pences in the United States, the problems that have risen in cities across America the last 15 years would not exist, thanks to your oh-so-enlightened non-conservative non-Christian socialist experiments that don't work. Don't force us to join your plan for unwitting self-destruction.

Pence and Trump are attempting to restore sanity after 8 years of unbelievable Obama decline. If Democrats were in power to expand the chaos they've already created, it would be national suicide.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5